[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> secretary of state john kerri gives his spurs -- first speech this morning. he will highlight the importance of foreign aid and we will have live coverage from the university of virginia beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. after that, we'll open up our phone lines to get your thoughts on foreign policy for the next four years and later, we will hear about the future of civilian operations in iraq and of kasten with the assistance secretary of state. -- and afghanistan with the

assistant secretary of state at 12:30 eastern from the council on foreign relations here on c- span. the associated press is reporting this morning that the obama administration is responding today to recent reports that the chinese government is tied to a large number of cyber attacks on the u.s.. if the administration released a report that it will consider fines and other trade actions against china or any other country guilty of cyber espionage. we will continue to follow that story and bring you any remarks that may come out from administration officials today. the supreme court is expected to hear arguments in late march in two prominent cases that could test the bounds of laws restricting gay marriage. authors of "recently released book some day marriage recently debated the issue at harvard university. it is and about how to by the federalist society at harvard. this is one hour. >> thank you. richard fallon is the junior professor of constitutional law at harvard law school. he also earned a ba degree from oxford university, where he was a rhodes scholar.

he served as a law clerk to justices of the united states supreme court and has written extensively about constitutional and federal courts law. he is the author of several books. we are very grateful for him for participating. andrew koppelman is the john paul stevens professor of law at northwestern university. he received his bachelor's from the university of chicago and his jd and phd from yale law school. his scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of law and political philosophy. he is the author of "defending american religious neutrality," and several other books.

and more than 80 articles and scholarly journals. sherif girgis is a phd student in philosophy at princeton university and a jd candidate at yale law school. after graduating from princeton, where he won prizes for best senior thesis in ethics and philosophy, as well as the dante society prize, he obtained a degree from the university of oxford as a rhodes scholar. he is the author of a recent book "what is marriage," described as the most formidable defense of traditional marriage ever written. we are grateful to him for participating in this event. >> thank you so much for the introduction. thanks, everyone, for coming. a special thanks to professor koppelman. i have a pleasure of speaking on the panel with him before. i not only respect his work a great deal, but his intellectual integrity.

he is willing to examine the assumptions behind views a lot of people are willing to treat as dogma. that is something very admirable. to be moderated by professor fallon, whose casebook i have to read tonight, is a little bit surreal and very much an honor. because the discussion we're having today is one that is not often had in the way we are having it, i thought it would be useful to just start by saying what i'm not going to say. it is very easy to hear what we assume is associated with a view rather than what is actually being said. a quick summary of that is that i am not arguing for morality, from religion, or from tradition. none of my arguments presuppose anything about the moral status of gay relationships. there are lots of valuable relationships that do not get recognized as marriage by anybody. that cannot be the decisive factor. they do not rely on any

particular religious tradition. if they did, it would still leave something to be desired because something i will defend today has been common to religions across time and many cultures. we would still want to ask the question of what common feature was motivating those theologies rather than the other way around. and i am not arguing that because it has always been this way it always should be. another thing is that my argument cannot be answered by appeals to equality. we usually think that this is the right response when we think of the marriage debate as a debate about whether to expand or restrict a pool of people eligible for marriage. it is true that from that perspective it looks like marriage is a good thing and should be available on an equal basis. i think that this debate is actually about a prior question. a debate about what marriage is, and why the states involved in the first place, which has implications for which unions

get recognized as marriages. my proposal is that the main vision of marriage on offer in support for same-sex marriage is mistaken. it is wrong about what marriage is. in other words, it cannot explain much less controversial features we all agree that sets marriage apart from other bonds. second, enshrining that different vision of marriage in the law and therefore over time in our public opinion and in culture and practice would be harmful to the common good, in particular for the common good that gets the state involved in marriage in the first place. in light of both of those things, the mainstream argument for same-sex marriage actually has a lot of internal contradictions that are rarely examined and i think create just the kinds of problems for the same-sex marriage view that most proponents think in terms of justice.

what is that vision of marriage on offer? you could think about it by asking, if we recognize a relationship of any two people in love but not other forms of relationships, what sets those apart? what is it that makes two men in love get married in new york different from two brothers who never stop living together, and who nobody would call married? when you think of it that way, you see what sets marriage apart is a certain kind of emotional union or intensity or priority. my claim is that that vision of marriage collapses the distinction between marriage and the much broader category of companionship. it cannot explain any of the less controversial features we both still agreed set marriage apart. for example, most of us think that unlike other forms of friendship, marriage has to be pledged to permanence.

but if what sets it apart is that kind of emotional union or intensity of regard, there is no reason, none other than an irrational attachment to tradition, why we should pledge to permanence as opposed to remaining together as long as that union, that emotional union lasts. or sexual exclusivity. depending on temperament or taste, perhaps for some couples sexual exclusivity fosters emotional union, and for others some degree of agreed-upon outlets would foster it better. that too, which most of us think is what makes a marriage, would be at best contingent. same thing is true of the idea of marriage as a union of two people. if the emotional union of a certain sort makes a marriage, it is true that two men as well as a man and woman can have it. but the same is true of three men. we are not talking about polygamy, but just the idea of plural marriage.

"newsweek" tells us there are 500,000 polyamorous relationships in the us. i think there is no relevant distinction between those and two man in love. both have the emotional union and have what makes a marriage. even the idea that it is a sexual relationship, perhaps the least controversial part of most people's vision of marriage emma becomes harder to explain. if all that contributes to marriage is a certain fostering of emotion and tenderness, then it is hard to see why sex is crucial, why it is not replaceable depending on temperament or taste, with other forms of activities or intimacy. that is some of the reason i think this vision of marriage gets marriage wrong. it misunderstands the human we have after. you might ask what difference it makes, why it is not just

enshrined, this alternative vision of marriage in the law? i think to get a handle on that question we have to first ask why we recognize marriage at all. a puzzling thing. usually the less personal a relationship is, the more the state is involved. our business partnerships, but not so much our best friendships. why marriage? why that personally viable form of tenderness and lovely, rich? i think your history is a useful heuristic. we have almost every society socially regulating the sexual relationships with men and women. those sexual relationships alone produce new human beings, require years of commitment from the parents. in order to reach physical and psychological and emotional maturity.

every aspect of the common good, every institution of civil society, the economy itself, and the states, depend on that kind of maturity but cannot themselves provided. as well as the stabling commitment of a mother and father. that is what gets the state involved in marriage. it is the social need to promote the stabilizing norms. it is those very stabilizing norms that i say are undermined in principle, and then over time, in practice, as we internalize the idea that marriage is just companionship, that it has no more internal requirements and companionship does, which is a very broader category. note what this highlights. this suggests that, if the norm of sexual complementarity is arbitrary, just a traditional holdover, then so is permanence.

so is exclusivity. so is monogamy. why do i say that? very often people say, we can cross those bridges when we get there. you do not have to worry today about polyamorous relationships and so on. i think the logic of those positions does not allow that answer. the logic of their position is that what makes a marriage's emotional union is arbitrary, requiring sexual commentary, which is not essential to that -- by the same token it is equally arbitrary to require permanence. this is not just a point conservatives make. it is one that is increasingly made by the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage. dan savage, a very sympathetic "new york times" profile has in several pages talking about how

the norm of sexual exclusivity is just as arbitrary and in some cases just as harmful as the norm of commentary. you have activists who are lgbt allied saying justice requires recognizing not just same-sex relationships, but multiple partner unions, multiple household unions, nonsexual unions, and so on. they agree increasingly that if sexual complementarity is arbitrary, so are other norms. they only disagree that disentangling this for marriage is a good thing. at this stage you might ask yourself, what is the alternative? what is this other vision of marriage? that is what we try to sketch at some length in the book, but i can give you a summary of it

here. it is a vision that i think you might recognize as being reflected in the judeo- christian tradition, but also reflected to a great extent in the muslim tradition. not just in the monotheistic traditions, but also in the work of someone like gandhi. not just in western or eastern religions, but in the common law. in many phases of ancient greek and roman law. in ancient greece and rome, the thinkers, socrates, aristotle, the stoics, people with no connection to judaism or christianity. that makes it worth listening to at least. the way i would summarize is that on this vision, marriage is a comprehensive union. in all the ways that make a community at all, the community we understand as marriage is

comprehensive. any form of community, i think, is made by a union of a partner with respect to certain goods in the context of a commitment. it is activity toward common and. in those respects, marriage is comprehensive. the union is comprehensive that the levels of the partners united, not just heart and mind, but heart, mind, and body. bodily union means what it means within an individual. parts of my body or yours are one. they are all actively courted native toward a single end. that unity is possible between two people, but only the sexual act of a man and woman, where bodies are actively courted toward a single end, reproduction of the whole that encompasses him both. a drama troupe is enriched or

for filled by an aesthetic experience. a scholarly community by the pursuit of knowledge. marriage is fulfilled by the bearing and rearing of children. therefore, all the goods human beings are subject of. there again, the best way to make sense of that is on the traditional view. a man and a woman feel their marital love by the very act that also makes new life. the relationship of that act is itself fulfilled by the bearing and rearing of children and the sharing of life that calls for a cross all aspects. because it is comprehensive in the dimensions of the partnerships united and the goods they are united around, it calls for comprehensive commitment, permanent and exclusive. this is the vision of marriage that i think make sense of lots of features that would make no sense in the other view. the requirement of consummation

to complete a marriage, the idea that marriage has any inherent and stable connection to family life, that it inherently calls for permanence and exclusivity apart from subjective tastes or. the idea the state has an interest in it at all as opposed to other forms of deeper emotional bonds. it makes sense of these cross- cultural and cross-millennial, really, traditions. replacing that vision of marriage with a vision of marriage that is different not only undermines those norms and makes them impossible to explain, but also over time makes them impossible to enforce. that in turn will hurt every common good that we recognize marriage in the first place to serve. thanks. [applause] >> ok. for better or for worse, same-

sex marriage is one of the most successful social movements in american history. outside the realm of political possibility as early as the 1990s, and now its victory is patently inevitable. it succeeded largely because its opponents have been so inarticulate and, this is the crucial part, they have remarkably failed to pass on their views to their children. my guess is that, i will not ask for a show of hands as to who in the room is predisposed to agree with me and who in the room was predisposed to agree with sherif, because it just would not be friendly. i know. according to a gallup poll, 46% of americans oppose same-sex marriage. 53% are in favor. the percentage that supports has doubled in only 15 years. there is a huge generational

divide. among people who are 18-29 years old, 73% support same-sex marriage. that number drops steadily with age. only 39% of those who are 65 or older support same-sex marriage. this is the result of a massive political shift. barack obama is the first democratic president to support same-sex marriage. he is also the last democratic president to oppose same-sex marriage. that will never happen again. republicans are painfully and grudgingly beginning to do likewise. so, the book that sherif girgis has written is an important book. it is clear, tightly reasoned. it is a philosophical argument -- it is fun to read. now, there are some people who have argued against same-sex marriage because of the

purported baleful consequences, a terrible effect on heterosexual families. these claims are parasitic on deeper philosophical claims. i will focus on the deeper philosophical claims. the central claim is that, the work he is offering comes out of the new natural law theory that has been held for some decades. robert george of princeton, one of the co-authors of the book -- they argue there are some universal human goods. cross-culturally universal goods. life, health, knowledge, friendship. i agree with them about this. their claim, though, is that marriage is such a good. a cross-culturally universal good thomas and it is a distinctive on with its own value that the state did not invent and has no power to

redefine. its goodness arises, this is the core of his claim, arises from the bodily union that only a man and a woman can achieve. their challenge has always been to explain what the intrinsic difference is or could be between same-sex and opposite- sex couples. the response is the union of opposite-sex couples has an intelligible essence that same- sex topples cannot possibly participate in. i will read from the new book. "man and woman, when they unite bodily, they coordinate toward a common biological and of the whole that the form together." this is something a same-sex couple cannot accomplish -- there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate.

for biological union to occur, the bodies have to be coordinated toward something. in human bodies there is only one such biological end. i am not sure this is true. there are some things that are things you can do with your body -- a biological function. singing, something you have to have your body do. i am not sure a chorus does not achieve bodily union. but this is a side issue. a central objection is that this argument about bodily coordination cannot explain why the line is drawn and the way they have drawn it so that heterosexual couples who know themselves to be infertile are nonetheless in the charmed circle.

a sterile person's genitals are no more suitable for procreation than an unloaded gun is for shooting. even if you thought there was something intrinsically wonderful about heterosexual union, why the lines would be drawn in the way they have drawn it. so then we get into an extended argument. i say, they address it to some extent in their book. their treatments are scrupulously fair and accurate. they claim, even in that case the body is coordinating toward an end. when any couple, a man and a woman procreate, they do not know that on that occasion there is going to be an egg to be fertilized. the meaning of what they do now cannot depend on what happens later. a broken gone, even irreparably broken, is still a gun. that is not true of a pile of gun parts.

the infertile heterosexual couple who unites achieves that good of unity, so the argument goes, in the same way that the couple who will actually fertilize a baby succeed in doing. here i have to say, there is a problem when one argues about good. alternately you need uptake on the part of the audience. the audience has to be persuaded that the thing being argued for is in fact good. you just have got to see it. if i were trying to argue about the good of friendship, we agree that this is something cross-culturally good. if i was trying to persuade someone who has never had any friends and could not understand the point, it would be very tricky to try to get the person to see what we are talking about their. i am going to have to report my

own limitations here. whatever the good the infertile heterosexual couple achieves does not seem to me as though it has got anything to do with the creation of babies. they argue the infertile couple's unions is a viable part of a valuable whole, but i do not see what value there would be in deliberately assembling and irreparably broken gun in a way related to the function of shooting. maybe you want to do to it to put it in a museum, but it does not have the goodness of this particular unity as a reason for action. it is a real question i want you to clarify. the argument also curiously fails to appreciate certain types of reproduction cord nations. there are a few dismissive lines about artificial reproduction in the book, but it is not clear to me why a couple

engaging in artificial reproduction is not also coordinating toward the bodily good of reproduction. now, there are other aspects of the account of marriage that are, i think, mysterious. they say their view can account for monogamy, for example. i will read you a line from the book "spouses should have by commitment to exclusive and lifelong committee that the parts of the that the parts of the body have by nature." i think this is a non sequitur. not to me is swell, but it does not follow from biological unity. one person can coordinate with a lot of others. if you study history, it has been done. [laughter] think of a chorus. lots of people coordinating bodily. now, the authors claim that

unless their standard of marriage is widely shared, social pressures will diminish for husbands to stay with wives and children or men and women to marry before having children. they say only their understanding can save marital stability. as of the harm of same-sex marriage. "as more people absorb the idea of marriage, marriages will increasingly take on emotions of tyrannical inconstancy." but look at the top economic quartile of americans, those most likely to endorse same-sex marriage. another reason why it would have been unfair for a show of hands -- this is harvard law school -- within that quartile rates of non-marital birth and divorce are basically what they were during the 1950s. you guys are likely to stay married. so those people evidently

perceive a reason to control emotionally tyrannical inconstancy, which is not a reason to reject same-sex marriage because it is the same. i am an example. my wife and i have been together for decades. and i also think that the account of marriage in the book is so novel and esoteric that it is hard to believe it has any effect at all on ordinary people's behavior. i will bet most of you are still trying to get it. they cite a few ancient philosophers who held ideas about marriage that were broadly consistent with theirs, but i do not think you will define this bodily unity lot in aristotle. philosophy is not about inclusion.

it is about arguments. this really is a very novel example. let me say something about the alternative view, more precisely, the idea there is the alternative view and it is that of dan savage. i love dan savage, but i do not agree with everything he says. they claim that the alternate view holds that marriage has an essence and is essentially an emotional union nearly enhanced by whatever sexual activity the partners find agreeable. the logic of that view is that there are no principled boundaries to marriage so it has to logically sweep into itself polygamist groups and celibates who happen to share a household such as brothers living together. they are right about the weaknesses of any rival eventualism,. i think the right things to say that marriage is not essentially anything. it is a historical, cultural formation. it would not have arisen were it not the case that human beings produce sexually.

that is how it came to arise. but it does not have any essence. there are regularities about it that ought to influence the weight married people behave. 99% of heterosexual couples report that they expect sexual exclusivity in their marriage. violations of it are rounds for divorce across lots of cultures. keep that in mind. but marriage might be a practice that suits needs but can be modified freely as our understanding of human needs of all. evolves. the fundamental difficulty in the claim, i think, is the short distance from premise to conclusion. the union of the married, heterosexual couple is uniquely good because -- well, because the union of a married heterosexual couple is uniquely good.

this intuition comes decorated with a complex theoretical apparatus, but the apparatus does not do any work. i think their book is a public service. is very grateful this book out there concisely because this is the perspective that fewer and fewer american share and a of people find unintelligible. i think it is good for the country for people to understand their fellow citizens. right now there are a lot of your fellow citizens who were being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. it is good to understand what your fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a dying world here. it is unlikely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with its claims, and it is not going to have much impact on its intended contemporary audience. but it really does have value in advancing our understanding of the landscape of arguments today.

for that we should all be grateful to them. it will also be of enormous value to historians. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank both the participants in this debate for giving very stimulating recitations. i've heard any number of people shout at each other about these issues over the years. i have seldom heard a really valuable discussion before an audience such as this. i think we should all be grateful to them. i want to give you a chance to answer, but let me build first on something he said at the end. it captures somewhat the question i was going to ask. you began by saying your argument was not going to be a moral argument.

you began, if i understood you correctly, saying you were going to explain what we might think of as the conceptual logic of the concept of marriage or what andy referred to in the end as what is essential to marriage. so i am just a little puzzled about how that argument can be made without being a moral argument. for example, suppose i say, i know a married homosexual couple, i know two men who married each other here in the state of massachusetts. they are recognized by the state of massachusetts and have all the privileges of marriage within this date of massachusetts. one possibility in the purely conceptual view would be that due to the effect of when i say that i have echoed the state of massachusetts in making a mistake, what i have said could

not be possibly true, it is as if the state of massachusetts issued dog licenses to. cats. but the issuing of a dog license to a cat does not change it. a dog just is something. i think andy's point is that marriage is not like that. in order to determine what ought to count as marriage and what ought not to count as marriage, we have to make moral judgments. am i correct in that? if i am correct in that, do you want to take this opportunity to be a little more straightforward about what the precise moral argument you are urging is? >> what i began with was the argument does not depend on saying that same-sex relationships were immoral. the simple reason is we do not think marriage law is supposed

to just contain married -- valuable and morally good relationships. we are all in relationships that are not recognized as marriage, and nobody thinks it is unjust for them not to be recognized. it is moral in the sense it is talking about a human good that the state is tracking and has reasons to track, but it is not moral in the sense of relying on a claim about the immorality of same-sex relationships or any other relationships. let me say a little bit about the idea that there is something to marriage cross-culturally. i have heard very often, the frequent claim that it just cannot possibly happen. koppelman. i think there are arguments for the other side of that question. let me go through a couple. you might at the most general level think there is something

mysterious about the requirements of human good. but that view would quickly read relativism. it would be impossible explain human rights, the basis of justice, so often invoked against me, to explain anything, any normative claim we make. we might say it is more specific than that. there is a problem, not that there cannot be objective criteria for anything, just that there cannot be for a social institution like marriage. but andrew koppelman himself has contradicted that idea. he has agreed, and most of us would agree, that friendship is something, there is a good there, that you cannot capture unless you are bonded to someone else. it is nothing more mysterious than that that i'm claiming

about marriage. in light of that particular good, certain requirements arise for it, like loyalty in the case of friendship and sexual exclusivity in the case of marriage. the reason i cited these other thinkers from ancient greece or rome or whatever is just to find people who you could not say were motivated by religion. they were not motivated by bigotry either because, well many of them were in highly homoerotic cultures in the sense they had nothing against homosexuality, they were in a time and place where the idea of sexual orientation in picking out animus against a class of people did not exist. it was not religious or property concerns. they were articulating a view of the human good and not what law should be in the first place. they must have had an insight into the structure of marriage just as we might have had insight into the structure of

friendship. a final point about the question is that most of you are probably committed to the views that entail the same thing, that there is an objective standard of what marriage is. if marriage was just whatever the majority said it was there would be no independent standard for saying a marriage law was unjust, that it unjustly excluded some relationships that are true marriages. you might say that it is just not sure, there is a cluster of social good that original might serve, and those goods can evolve over time and so can marriage law. i would press the question again, which i have pressed in lots of venues and never heard a good answer. if you can give me a good answer, i will retract the whole book. it is a question of -- you are excited now.

[laughter] we will make news right here. let's just take one simple example. the three men in love. there was one sympathetic profile of them, a three-person couple. they live together, are in love, share all the burdens and benefits of domestic life against an indefinite horizon. they do not want their relationship to be stigmatized as they raise kids together. they want to be able to be co- owners to their goods if one of them dies. they think equality requires not excluding them and the relationship that they identify as most fulfilling for them from their general recognition. if there is no idea of what marriage is such that this is, however viable for them, not a marriage, then the only thing you can say against it is that it must have some social cost.

social cost that is so great that it justifies violating what is otherwise a basic right. basic rights usually trump even great social cost. what could that be? there is no answer in what professor koppelman said or wrote. there has been no answer in the years we have been making this challenge. it draws people back to the point that there is a structure to marriage and the way that there is a structured a friendship. it is worth keeping those clear. even if non-friendship and her actions or non-marital friendships can themselves also have a different and separate value. i will say one more thing by way of response to some of professor koppelman's points. if you take any difficult moral issue and drill down to bedrock, you will come up with

complexity. arguments will not sound routine. they will be difficult. the law has to take a position on who the person is. if you look on the literature on personhood, whether you are with peter singer or robert george, it is difficult, complex, dense. that does not mean people do not have a rough grasp of the concept. of course that can be an object. >> let me put one question to you.

i'm afraid it is too easy to say that it is dense or to say it is not routine. because this challenge would

pose has never been met on the other side, there are not equally particulate views of what marriage is so that it could be possible between two men or whatever else. the challenge could be to write the opposite book and then we can compare them and compare intuitions and the degree with history and i am pretty confident it would do well in that case. >> what about the thruple? think about the game of chess which evolved over time. i'm pretty sure the moves of the night king last because it is so odd compared to the rest of it.

they tried to decide whether to change the game that way and somebody proposed today if we had left the queen move like that night. but this is not a question that will be resolved by principle. will boost results by the principle of the good internal to chess, will we improve the institution? that seems speed the way to have a conversation about the thruple. we can still have a question about justice even if the institution is socially constructed. a national law that says it is illegal for a black person and a white person to play chess together, of course that could be an object. >>sherif makes the charge that if you want to defend a vision of marriage that includes same- sex couples you have got to give some account of what the essence of marriage is, and that the prevailing understanding of

public supporters of same-sex marriages that the essence of marriage is emotional union. do you agree with that? >> no. the claim i have been making is that not everything has an essence. chess does not have an essence. we can still talk about it. this is not an argument about essences. >> is this an improvement in the concept of marriage that society has operated with, that marriage is now understood in a way that encompasses same-sex couples? >> it makes a lot of people better off and i do not believe it makes anybody else worse off. >> again, if you zoom in on the question of whether to give a particular household a particular benefit, the answer is there is always a reason to do it. there is always a reason to give

a particular person a tax break or increase social status and so on. that is not the question. the question is, what are the competing pros and cons of enshrining in our law and therefore overtime in our hearts and minds one or another vision of what marriage is. is there a value, socially or otherwise, to preserving certain norms as constituting marriage as opposed to other forms of relationships? i think the best recent example of the implications of this question has nothing to do with same-sex relationships. it is no-fault divorce. when i was busy gestating in the 1980s, people were arguing that no-fault divorce was a win- win. if a relationship has a high level of conflict, they want to get out of it anyway, nobody who has a happy marriage will avail themselves of no-fault divorce. but it is only a benefit for everybody.

now the data is in a generation later. it is a very questionable claim. you have increasingly liberal as well as conservative people saying no-fault divorce did not just make it easier for high conflict marriages to break up, it changed what people thought they were getting into. it changed people's understanding of stability and security in marriage. it made them less likely to stick with it through medium level conflict, which studies suggest is overcomable. the casualties were not just the spouses, but to sum significant and measurable extent their children. when we ask the question, we have to take it at the level it is proposed. as a policy question. what are the implications for the future and for future marriages in particular and the interest of those regulating it at all, of any proposed change? >> could you be more specific

about what are the harms you see ensuing to whom? >> sure. basically, the state sends a couple different messages when it recognizes same-sex unions is equivalent in all important ways to opposite sex ones. what makes a marriage different from other bonds is -- essentially or just in our social convention -- is a certain kind of emotional union. a second thing it teaches is that mothers and fathers are replaceable for the purposes of parenting. and that it is bigotry to suggest otherwise. sticking with those two things, you see a couple different harms. one is that the more people internalize that, the lower their internal motivations will be and the lower general social encouragement or pressure if you want to put it negatively will be, for example, for couples to stay together when you emotion wanes or wanders.

when they have been imbibing from their youth that the father does not contribute anything distinctive to children or their upbringing. there are harms. one we talk about in the book, to give you a sense, is if you define marriage by its degree or intensity of affective union, you suggest that what is not marriage is simply . as a result, people who are unmarried or stay unmarried for whatever reason will find it harder, i think, to find deep emotional fulfillment in non- marital bonds. it will be socially less acceptable to find deep emotional fulfillment outside of marriage now that marriage has been defined by being simply the endpoint of this spectrum of closeness to another person. this is not something i am making up.

you have seen an increasing literature about this, including more recently in "the new york times." "atlantic" writers made the point, drawing the same connection. there are lots of ramifications. there are ramifications of blurring the distinction between the marital form of community with someone else and companionship more generally. >> to make sure i'm getting this, the claim is children in future generations will be worse off and lots of other people will be were soft because they will find it harder than they would if we continued with the traditional definition of marriage to find close, enduring, emotional connection? >> outside of marriage, yes. and that in all those respects every aspect of the common good that depends on a healthy next generation will be hurt as

well, which includes limited government, for the libertarians and the audience, and many other aspects. >> let's give andy one last reply. >> we are running out of time. >> we are eager to have questions. we are insisting you go to the microphone. would somebody go to the microphone there? there is one right there. >> you know you want to. >> my name is david. thank you both for taking the time to come out. when i listen to your speech, i am a little bit confused by the notion of marriage having to have an essence. i suppose that to mean marriage is more a social recognition of a relationship that also carries legal benefits, you could limit it to complementarity, but i also know it has to go beyond that,

at least in the respect that the alternative you give, what about polyamorous relationships, that seems a little bit more objectively easy to reject. we do not want to abuse the legal benefits conferred on marriage. can you speak more on why couples who do not choose to have sex, couples who do not choose to be exclusive, or couples who are infertile or even, say, a man and a woman who do not have the requisite genitals, for instance, should be allowed to marry well a homosexual couple should not have that legal recognition and that social recognition of their relationship? >> sure. this reminds me of something professor koppelman said that i want to address as well. there are two strands. one is, implicitly, you cannot possibly have captured a value of the category here. it is just about the equipment, as professor koppelman says. he point i want to make it you

can do this with any view. i can say, if you only want to recognize sexual relationships, you think there is something special about climax. there is a way of putting it that undermines the value that proponents of that view say there is. that is not fair. the question is not that, but whether there is an accurate description of value. we did not to say heterosexual monogamous union is viable because it is valuable. he give you a general account of what marriage is about. a bodily union, and then we have shown you how only the union a man and a woman form answers to that description. it is not circular. it goes somewhere. more specifically to your question, i think it is easiest -- you say polyamory is easier to answer objectively. and that this is an abuse of marriage recognition -- it would be like me coming up and

saying, it is just a fact that complementarity is essential. you might ask why the state's involved in this in the first place. if you do not think there is a human good that can be tracked in and objectives structure. if you think it is just the fact that when people live together they have certain practical needs, which i also here, i can agree. i can say you are right. a lot of the things most often mentioned, i agree, people should have the right. but there is no reason that that should be limited to a sexual relationship. two brothers to live together and share the burdens and benefits of a home together should have those benefits as

well. it would not require redefining marriage in particular to grant them. it would be unjust to do it because it would be too limited. if you do not believe in the idea that marriage has objective criteria, ask why the state is involved in the first place. that is another way of getting at what we think would have to converge with something like the conjugal view. >> andy, why don't you say something in response to that well we look for a another to step forward to the microphone to ask a question when andy is done? >> i think i have already -- >> why the state is in marriage at all? >> certainly, there are really two reasons. one of them, i will call it the henry smith reason. people are in these relationships, these

relationships have public effects. they transact with lots of others. it facilitates transactions for everybody else to know what these relationships are. it facilitates relationships between the parties to know what these relationships are. in this sense the law of marriage is like the law of business corporations or the law of property, a one-size-fits-all set of rights. they probably do not fit a lot of people. part of the claims of same-sex couples, they have all the same reasons for wanting this legal recognition, household and children. the other arises out of something barely mentioned today. a long, messy history of discrimination against gay people, in that context excluding couples who look an awful lot like heterosexual married couples, from this institution.

it partakes of that pattern of stigma and discrimination we are trying to move away from. >> you will get to respond to that. first, thanks. i know it takes a lot of courage and the circle you running, yale and harvard, to see the things you believe. i do not agree with you, but i respect that courage. my question is, we are in a room of people who can follow the philosophy behind your argument, which i do not think is that complicated. if you look broadly at society, the technology that even if subconsciously people are in tune with the philosophical points you are making they do not rationalize it that way. we live in a society where a recent study suggests that out homosexuals are less anxious and depressed than on the whole heterosexuals. we live in a society where three years ago a school district in minnesota was struck by kindle where nine students killed themselves. five perhaps for reasons related to perceived or actual sexuality.

we live in a society where symbolically marriage is involved with a number of philosophical points you have made. symbolically, a lot of people are against gay marriage because they are against gay relationships. that particular bias affects these children. and the children of gay couples. do you really think that in that context your philosophical argument, however valid, outweighs that brought societal symbolic perception, and the ability through transforming marriage to perhaps the race anti-gay bias in a society that is rife with it? >> a couple quick points. thank you for the question. the first thing is that one thing that is implicit in your argument is that the middle point on the spectrum is the one that is really difficult. if more people had something like a conjugal view of marriage, it is oriented to family life, whatever, the

particular way, the less people would infer from it anti-gay anything. then the failure to recognize same-sex relationships would not be predicated on the idea that they are less worthy, but just that they are different forms of relationships. it is not any more of an insult and to not recognize them than to not recognize friendships. that may be an argument that could cut either way. either if you are going to support this view, do not stop there, but make sure there is more of an enshrining of this general view of marriage so that people do not have to worry about anti-gay bias. that is my own position. i do not think -- in order to regain a foothold, to rebuild the other aspects of marriage culture. the second thing, i understand that -- the appeal of redefining marriage as a way of attacking anti-gay bias, but i think it is a blunt instrument. i think using marriage law as

an instrument of inclusion, as a signal of approval or normality, would then only further drive into the margins of society people who for whatever reason, including personal reasons or choice or if they identify as a sexual or whatever, do not get married. i think the answer to so i think the answer to fight bullying is bullying. while there may be some marginal benefit of redefining marriage to accomplish that the worthy purpose, not only would it have the collateral that i'm talking about, but its bluntness has an instrument for that purpose. we have bad unintended effects. >> on behalf of all of us in this room, i'm sure i want to take this opportunity to thank

the two participants in this very informative discussion. so, thanks again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the communism of china is

communism in name only these days. it is to preserve the power of the members of the communist party. they basically threw most ideologies aside when it became a capitalist haven. . now in china, they talked at great plant at a party congress is about marxism and leninism, but it's all about preserving the party's power economically as the country continues to grow. in north korea, is all about preserving the power of the military and the kim dynasty. it really has nothing to do with what karl marx envisioned as communism way back. someone could do a fascinating book on when communism move into asia it diverged into something different in vietnam, south korea, laos than the communism in eastern europe. >> harvard follow pete

christianburg on 34 years of reporting. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> of blockaded the principal naval strategy of the northern states, the principal naval strategy of the southern states is commerce raiding. one gun on the pivot. if you are going after merchant ships, one is all you need. if you call a merchant ship, the idea was come along side and put a prize crew on board and take it to a court where it could be adjudicated, sell it at auction, and you got to keep all the money. because privateering depends on profits, the ship owner paid the men and buys the food and expects a return on his money. and the crew expected prize money.

without friendly port where they could be condemned and then sold, you cannot make sold,off it. therefore, confederates private ering lasted about three months or slightly longer. entrepreneurs found out they could make more money blockade- run and. >> looking at the civil war at sea saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, this weekend on c- span3. >> c-span is live at the campus of the university of virginia in charlottesville to hear from secretary of state john kerry. he will make his first major public speech since being sworn into office earlier this month. he is expected to talk about's the foreign policy priorities and the importance of foreign aid. he will be introduced by the president of the university of

virginia, teresa sullivan. this speech is ahead of a 10-day trip by the secretary to the u.k., germany, france, italy, turkey, and other companies -- countries, wrapping up in the united emirates and qatar, next week. later today he will meet with the president about that trip, at the white house at 4:00 p.m. eastern. secretaire states kerry next. after he's done, we will open up our phone lines to get your reaction by phone and by twitter on your foreign policy priorities. that will be after the speech this afternoon. president's nominee for secretary of defense, the senate will be back next week. house as well. debate resuming on the nomination of former nebraska senator chuck hagel to be defense secretary. the house and senate returning next monday, february 25.

[applause] >> good morning. i am teresa sullivan, president of the university of virginia. a warm welcome to senator tim

kaine, representative robert third period our guest from the state department as well as members of the university board of visitors and our students, faculty, and staff. it seems entirely appropriate that america opposing the secretary of states has chosen to deliver his first major address here in the commonwealth of virginia. the roots of national leadership run deep in virginia. this is the birthplace of eight american presidents, including thomas derickson, who founded the university based on his belief that learning is the surest path to a national stability and human liberty. -- thomas jefferson. this morning we are gathered just a few hundred yards from the spot where three american presidents, mr. jefferson, james madison, and james monroe, gathered in 1917 to lay the cornerstone for the first

university of virginia building. this gave life to the university that would become into a person's words "and institution on which the portents of the country may depend." gatherings of national significance have been held here since the university is beginning. in 1940, president franklin roosevelt came to uva to speak about the country's future as the nation stood on the brink of war. in 1989, president george h. w. bush assembled america's governors in charlottesville for an education summit that led to the development of national goals for education. many other national and global leaders have come to these grounds for discussions that shaped our goals and aspirations as a people. today continuing in this tradition, secretary of state john carey will speak about the importance of effective american foreign policy and diplomacy.

-- kerry. while he is our 68 secretary of state, thomas jefferson served as our country's first secretary of state beginning in 1790. in the spring of 1793 as he was nearing the end of his term, he wrote a letter to james madison in which he reflected on a personal obligation of national service. "a tour of duty in whatever way he could be most useful to his country is due from every individual. am." america opposing new secretary of state has served in the u.s. navy, in state government in massachusetts, in the u.s. senate, and now in his newest role as our nation's top diplomat. ofamerica's newest secretary state. we are honored and privileged to welcome him to charlottesville.

please welcome the u.s. representative for virginia's fifth congressional district, robert hurt. [applause] >> thank you, dr. sullivan. i thank each of you for being here. it's a great honor. thank you, dr. sullivan, for your leadership at the university of virginia for hosting this important occasion and giving in honor of being. it's an honor to be here with my friend, senator tim kaine. in addition to being the first secretary of state, we also know that thomas jefferson was the author of our founding document, the declaration of independence, where our founders at that time pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor and for the prospect of independence. we know that the independents

and yearning for independence was rooted in the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in this document which we are all familiar with, jefferson lays out the case for independence. in the document, he uses a phrase that has always struck me as important. he lays out his tax. he says "to approve these facts supporting our case, let the facts be submitted to a candid world." to me that phrase is important because it acknowledges as we put the role of state in 1776, we recognized we would not be the only people on that stage. we also knew at that time that if we wanted to be successful, we would have to build relationships across the world to ensure that success, to

ensure our freedom, and establish our independent. it's hard to imagine today that thomas jefferson could foresee the central role that our country now plays on that world stage. but i know that our newest secretary of state understands that fact just as well as our first secretary of state. it's an honor to welcome you to charlottesville, mr. secretary. it's an honor to be with senator tim kaine, who is a former governor. he needs no introduction. he's always been a good friend to the university. he started out early in his global outreach as a missionary to honduras. as governor, a travel to the world representing the commonwealth, to build relationships, commercial relationships with the commonwealth of virginia and places across the globe.

so it is entirely fitting that he takes a place -- an important place on the senate foreign relations committee. i know you will join me in welcoming our senator, former governor, and friend. friend [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you so much. hello, uva. it is great to be back on the grounds. i want to say to president sullivan was a treaty is to be here with you. thank you for hosting this great occasion. to my friend robert hurt, served with him in state government and now we travel to washington together. i look forward to good work together especially if on this occasion to introduce secretary kerry but to introduce uva to the secretary. as i walked onto the stage i had

a memory. esteban this stage with my dear friend, uva board member allan -- in a debate for lieutenant governor, a primary debate for lieutenant governor in the february of 2001. the press debate i've ever been in as -- >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> sopa to have you here, alan. so good to have the first secretary of state being the founder here, the cornerstone was laid by not only in thomas jefferson but james monroe, another secretary of state. it is fitting that the secretary of would be here. trackow john kerry's record. decorated veteran in vietnam.

but prosecutor, started in local government, as do so many others who serve. the state government in massachusetts. nearly 30 years as a u.s. senator. the only committee that he served on from the day he became a senator, until its last day in the center of the foreign relations committee. he grew up with a father in the foreign service. it is a family calling. i will count it as a joint but as a bittersweet sadness that my service in the senate, i got to serve with him on the foreign relations committee for one week. [laughter] i am the tune inn remember that committee. i sit far out on the wing on that committee. -- i am the junior senator on that committee. it was the first committee vote i cast was to confirm him as the new secretary. senator, you are coming to a place that believes deeply in the values that you share.

as robert mentioned. president jefferson strongly believed in the connection of this wonderful exemplary nations pooled world community. we have been a global leader. i always like to think about the global leadership that tries to balance military strength. secretary kerry knows the importance and limits of that spirit diplomatic strength, the strength of our economy, the strength of our moral example, after balance those things. this university has been educating and training people to understand that balance since its very beginning. i spoke this morning with a whole group of very talented young rotc students, many who are getting ready to graduate in commission on the three programs operating on the status. the university has put 1079 people into the peace corps in its 51 year history. numerous people over the course of the university history have

gone to work in the state department's. then we can go broader, teach for america, or the students who have trained over generations to get jag program degrees, military law degrees here. this university is so committed to that global role that we are supposed to play as citizens and to keeping those balances of strength and balance. there's really no one today on this stage in our country where exemplifies keeping those invalid better than our speaker. we're so glad to welcome here to the ground and to the commonwealth. please give a warm welcome to secretary john kerry.

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. good morning. thank you for an extraordinarily warm welcome, charlotte. i'm honored to be here. senator tim kaine, thank you for generous words of introduction. tim has only been on the foreign relations committee for total of a few weeks now. momentn his testimony a ago, i can commend him on his voting record. [laughter] he has found himself new job security, because in virginia you have a single term governor for a full your years. he has traded one single four- year term for a six-year term with potential extension. [laughter]

given the fact i traded several extensions for an four-year term and then i'm finished, maybe he knows something i ought to be listening to that i could learn a thing or two. we did not overlap along, but i want to tell everybody we know each other pretty well from service as lieutenant governor and when he was governor of the state. i was lieutenant governor carol my state, so we have that in, and before being senators. a quick story, i don't know what you do in virginia as lieutenant governor, but massachusetts, once upon a time, calvin coolidge was lieutenant governor. he was at a dinner party and they asked him what you do, he said i'm calvin coolidge,. , he said, tell me all about the

job. e-6 a, i just did. -- he said, i just did. [laughter] admiration for the past tim kaine has followed. i know his sense of what america means to the world that was forged in the early days that the congressman hurt referred to about his catholic missionary work in honduras, just helping other people to live healthier lives. two weeks after the election, tim called and asked if he could serve on the senate foreign relations committee. you don't always get those calls in the senate. people stepping forward to volunteer in that way on the committee, it does not have an opportunity to bring bacon back home. so i know that in tim kaine,

virginia has a senator who is going to make his mark on that committee and is going to make a mark for your common wealth and our country. and we're grateful for your service, tim. thank you very much. [applause] also, i am particularly grateful for congressman robert hurt being here today. i have left partisan politics. it's wonderful for me to be able to welcome people in the complete spirit of non partisanship, not just by partisanship. -- bipartisanship. i'm confident you are going to make your contribution. thank you for your presence here today. [applause]

president sullivan, thank you so much for welcoming me here today to this historic, remarkable campus. i feasted on the view as i walked across the lawn with president sullivan. i have to say, you all are very lucky to go to school here. it is an honor to join you hear on the grounds. [laughter] [applause] this very beautiful monument to the potential of the human mind. i have to tell you, to stand here beneath the gaze of the sages of athens, those thinkers who gave us the idea of democracy, which we obviously still continued to perfect, not only in our nation but around the world, we are grateful for that. also, i was here a long time ago as an undergraduate.

i played lacrosse on that field over there against you guys. my first act of diplomacy is literally to forget who won. i have no idea. [laughter] i want to thank the folks in uniform. i want to thank the rotc and all those of you who have served and will continue to serve in some way for our nation. there's no greater decoration of citizenship than that. -- no greater declaration of citizenship. some might ask why i am standing here at the university of virginia, why i'm starting here as secretary of state making his first speech in the united states. diplomacy ask, doesn't happen over there, overseas, far beyond the boundaries of our

backyard? why is it i'm on the but of the blue ridge instead of the shores of the black sea in? why i am here instead of in kabul? the reason is simple. i came here purposely to underscore that in today's global world there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy. more than ever before, the decisions that we make from the safety of our shores don't just ripped out words, they also creates a current right here in america. how we conduct our foreign policy matters more than ever before to our everyday lives, to the opportunities of all the students i met standing outside , would every year they are here, thinking about the future. it is important not just in terms of the correct that we face but the products that we

buy, the good that we sell, and the opportunities that we provide for economic growth and vitality. it's not just about whether we will be compelled to send our troops to another battle, but whether we will be able to send our graduates into a thriving workforce. that's what i am here today. i'm here because our lives as americans are more intertwined than ever before with the lives of people in parts of the world that we may have never visited. and the global talent is of diplomacy, development, economic security, environmental security, you will feel our success or failure just as strongly as those people in those other countries that you will never meet. -- the global challenge of diplomacy. for all we have gained in the 21st century, we lost the luxury of just looking inward. instead we look out and receive a new field of competitors.

i think it gives us much reason to hope, but it also gives us many more rivals determined to create jobs and opportunities for their own people, a veracious marketplace that's sometimes forgets morality and values. i know that some of you and many across the country which that globalization would just go away.o or you remember easier times. my friend, no politician, no matter how powerful, can put the jeannie back in the bottle. -- genie. our challenge is to obtain the worst impulses of globalization even as we harness its ability to spread information and possibility, to offer even the most remote place on earth the same choices that have made us strong and free. before i leave this weekend to

listen to our allies and partners next week throughout europe and the middle east and in the coming months across asia, africa, and the americas, i wanted to first talk with you about the challenge that we face here at home, because our engagements with the rest of the world begins by making some important choices together, and particularly about our nation's budget. our sense of shared responsibility that we care about something bigger than ourselves is absolutely central to the spirit of this school. it's also central to the spirit of our nation. as you well know and dr. sullivan reminded you a moment ago, our first secretary of state founded this great university. students in his day could basically only study law or

medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and at space , 4, form a common philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination

from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more. jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding this university is among the few accomplishments that jefferson listed on his epitaph that he wrote for himself. to him, this place and its goal was a bigger part of his legacy ban serving as secretary of state or even as president, neither of which made the cut. just as jefferson understood, that we need to invest in education in order to produce good citizens, i join president obama today in asserting with urgency that our citizenry deserves a strong foreign policy to protect our interests in the world.

a wise investment in foreign policy can yield for a nation the same return that education does for its students. no investment that we may that is as small as this investment put forward such a sizable benefit for ourselves and for our fellow citizens of the world. but on i wanted to have this conversation with you today, which i hope is a conversation that extends well beyond the borders of charlottesville, will be on this university, to all americans. why talk about a small investment in foreign policy in the united states, i mean it. not so long ago, someone told the american people and asked how big is our international terrorists budget? most said 20 presence and our national budget. what it ought to be pared back to the and% of our national budget.

let me tell you, i would take 10% in a heartbeat, folks. because 10% is exactly 10 times greater than what we do invest in our efforts to protect america around the world. over 1% funds all our civilian and foreign affairs efforts. every embassy, every program that saves a child from dirty drinking water or aids or reaches out to build a village to bring american values. we're not talking about pennies on the dollar. where do you think this idea comes from that we spend? 25% of spend? it's pretty simple. ,s a recovery politician ough

nothing gets a crowd faster in a lot of places than saying i am going to washington to get them to stop spending all that money over there. sometimes they get a lot more. more if you're looking for an applause line, that's about as guaranteed as you can get. it does nothing to guarantee our security. it does not guarantee a stronger country. it does not guarantee a sounder economy or a more stable job market. it does not guarantee that the best interests of our nation are being served. it does not guarantee that another young american man or woman will not going to lose their life, because we were not willing to make the right investments here in the first place. we need to say no to the politics of a lowest common denominator and of simplistic slogans and start making real

choices that protect the interests of our country. that is imperative. [applause] unfortunately, the state department does not have our own grover norquist pushing a pledge to protect it. of aarp have millions seniors who send in their dues and rallied to protect american investments overseas. the kids lose lives we are helping save from aids, the women we are helping to free from delores of sex trafficking, the students who for the first time can choose to walk into a school instead of into it a short life with terrorism, their strongest lobbyists are the

rare committed americans stand up for them and the resources we need to help them. i hope that includes all of you here and many listening. you understand why every time a tough fiscal choices looms, the easiest place to point fingers is chlorinated. as ronald reagan said, foreign aid suppers for the lack of domestic constituency. that's part of the reason everyone thinks it costs a lot more than it really does. so we need to change that. i reject the excuse that americans just are not interested in what's happening outside their immediate field of vision. i don't believe that about anyone of you sitting here and i don't believe that about americans. the real domestic constituency for what we do, if people could see the dog connected and understand what we are doing, is really large. is a 314 million americans whose lives are better every day

because of and when they have time to stop and pick about it, deep down they know our investment abroad actually makes them and our nation safer. my friends, in this age when a shrinking world clashes with calls for shrinking budgets, we are not alone. it's our job to connect those stocks, to connect them for the american people between what we do over their hands the size of the difference it makes. over here makes won't why the price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant and why the vacuum we will leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from czarist. -- from ours. we learned that lesson in the deserts of mali recently, in the mountains of a pakistan in 2001, and in the tribal areas of pakistan even today.

weay's first years at uva are starting the second grade when a small group of terrorists around the world and shattered our sense of security and our stability, are skylines. so i know that you certainly have always understood that bad things happening over there and threatened us right here. knowing that, the question is this -- how do we together make clear that the opposite is just as true, that if we do the right things, the good things, the smart things over there, it will strengthen us here at home. let me tell you my answer. i believe we do this in two ways. first, it's about telling the story of how we stand up for american jobs to businesses. pretty practical, straightforward, pretty real on a day-to-day basis.

we standt's about how up for our american values, something that has always distinguished america. i agree with president obama that there is nothing in this current budget fight that requires us to make bad decisions, that forces us to retrenched or to retreat. this is a time to continue to engage, for the sake of the safety and economic health of our country. this is not optional. it is a necessity. the american people understand this, i believe it. our businesses understand this. it is simple. the more they sell abroad, the more they will hire here and don't. since 95% of the world's customers live outside our country, we cannot hamstring our own ability to compete in those increasingly growing markets. virginia understands this as well as any state in the union.

senator tim kaine, stock tips to make this happen as governor. international trade supports more than 1 million jobs here in virginia. more than one out of five jobs in virginia, which actually today is the story of america. there's a company near dulles airport, with the the help of the persistent advocates of our embassy in bangkok, it beats out the french and russian competitors to build the newest broadcast satellite for thailand. virginia's orbital is now teaming up with a california company called spacex operation technologies that makes satellite equipment. that's a deal that our embassy helped to secure valued at $160 million goes right back into american communities from coast to coast. that is the difference that our embassies abroad can make here and all.

these success stories happen in partnership with countries all over the world because of the resources that we have deployed to bring business and jobs back to america. these investments, my friends, are paying for themselves. we create more than 5000 jobs for every billion dollars of goods and services that we export. so the last thing that we should do is surrender this kind of leverage. these successes are happening in canada, where state department officers there got a local automotive firm to invest tens of millions of dollars in michigan, where the american auto industry is now making a remarkable comeback. in indonesia, banks do with the embassy in jakarta -- thanks to embassy in jakarta, that nations privately owned airline does place an order for

commercial aircraft, the largest boeing has ever been asked to fill. the indonesian state railroad is buying its locomotives from general electric. >> more than 600 u.s. companies are doing business in south africa and where opec and the trade and development agency just opened an office to help close more investment deals between american companies and africa's booming energy and transportation sectors. it's also. also. a major south african energy to build alans multimillion-dollar plant in louisiana that would put more americans to work. let me tell you, this is happening. in cameroon and in bosnia and in other surprising places. in the shadows of world war ii, if you told someone that japan and germany would today be our

fourth and its largest trading partners, someone would have thought you were crazy. before nixon's old opening with china, no one could imagine that today it would be our second- largest trading partner, but that is exactly what has happened. 11 of our top 16 trading partners used to be the beneficiaries of u.s. foreign assistance. that's because our goal is not to keep a nation dependent on us forever. it is precisely to create these markets, to open these opportunities, to establish rule of law. our goal is to use assistance and development to help nations realize their own potential, develop their own ability to govern, and accomplish our economic partners. one of america's most incredible realities continues to be that we are a country without any permanent enemies. take vietnam. i will never forget standing

next to john mccain in the east room of the white house. each of us on either side of president clinton as he announced the once unthinkable normalization of our relations with vietnam, and efforts that john mccain and i worked on for about 10 years. to try to. in the last decade, thanks in large part to the work of usaid, our exports to vietnam increased by more than 700%. every one of those percentage points our jobs here in america. in the last two decades, 1000 vietnamese students and scholars have studied spanish and taught in america through the fulbright program, including the foreign minister of,who i just talked to the other day and who has feelings about america because of that engagement. the list goes on.

as the emerging middle class in india, the world's largest democracy, buys our products, that means jobs and incomes for our own middle-class. as our traditional assistance to brazil and decreases, trade there is increasing. brazil is one of the new tigris moment at a double-digit pace. it supports additional jobs here at home, many in the u.s. travel and tourism industry. when jefferson expanded our consular posts, precisely to promote trade, he never could have could the importance today. nor could be a predictable number of americans abroad that we help with passports, visas, with other problems that arise, or that will offer to those who want to grow their families to adoption or who find themselves in legal trouble or distressed far from home, or the role our

diplomats play screening potential security threats and taking them off the radar screen before they ever reach your consciousness potential in the worst ways, or that we create a new american jobs for every 65 visitors that we help bring to our shores. so we have to keep going. we cannot afford the kind of delay and disruption that stance on the horizon in washington. the exciting new trade negotiation that president obama announced last week between the united states and the european union will create the world's biggest bilateral deal with it comes to fruition, a trans-atlantic partnership that will match the scope and ambition of our trans-pacific partnership talks. but our work is far from over. seven of the 10 fastest-growing countries are on the african continent. and china understanding that, is

already investing more than we do there. four of the five biggest oil and gas natural discoveries happened off the coast of mozambique last year. developing economies are the epicenters of brokers and their open for business. and the united states needs to be at that table it. pipa want a new list upper assistance graduates -- if we want a new list of assistance graduates, companiecountries tht used to receive aid from us, we cannot shy away from telling this story to the american people, to your members of congress, and to the world. let me emphasize, jobs and trade are not the whole story and nor should they be. the good work of the state department and usaid is measured not only in the value

of the dollar, it's also measured in our deepest values. we got your security and stability in other parts of the world, knowing that failed states are among our greatest security perhaps and the new partners are our greatest assets. the investments that we make support our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism wherever it flourishes. we will continue to help countries provide their own security, use diplomacy when possible, and support those allies and take the fight to terrorists. remember, i cannot emphasize this enough, i'm looking at a soldier in front of me with a ribbon on his chest, deploying diplomats today is much cheaper than deploying troops tomorrow. [applause] we need to remember that.

[applause] a senator thune instagram said, it is -- as senator lindsey graham said, is national security that we are buying. it sounds expensive, but it's not. the state department's conflict stabilization budget is about $60 million a year now. that's how much the movie "the on a singleooki in sunday last may. [laughter] the difference is the folks we have on the ground doing his job are real super heroes. we value human rights and we need to tell the story of america's good work there too. we know that the most effective way to promote the universal

rights of all people, their rights and religious freedom is not from the podium or from either end of pennsylvania avenue. it is from the front lines, where ever freedom and basic human dignity are denied. that's what tim kaine understood when he went to honduras. the brave employees of state and usaid and diplomatic security personnel who protect civilians serving as overseas work in some of the most dangerous places on merit and they do it is fully cognizant that we share stronger partnerships with countries that share our commitment to democratic values and human rights. despite corruption in nigeria. they support the rule of law in burma. they support democratic institutions in kurdistan and in georgia, mindful from our own experience that it takes a long time to get democracy right and that it rarely happens right away. in the end, all of those

efforts, all that danger and risk that they take makes us more secure and we do value democracy just as you demonstrated here at uva through the presidential program that's training leaders in the emerging democracies. thanks to a decade of intensive diplomatic efforts alongside our partners, a conflict that took more than 2 million lives. the book about the holocaust, 6 million over the course of world war ii. we lost 2 million people in the longest war in africa in our time in the last years. and south sudan was born out of that act as a free nation. securing its future and peace for all of its citizens will take continued diplomatic efforts alongside partners like the african union. " we can develop the capacity of the african union, gillespie u.s. will have to worry.

i've stood in south sudan and tax in the talent district and. they still face the world's newest country and its government. those challenges threaten to reverse hard-won progress and stability. that's why we are working closely with that nation to help it provide its own citizens with essential services like water and health and education and agriculture practices. we value health and nutrition and the principle of helping people gain strength to help themselves the cornerstone initiatives like feed the future. we help countries not only to plant and harvest better food but we also help them break the cycle of poverty, of poor nutrition, of hunger. we seek to reduce maternal mortality, eradicate polio, and protect people from malaria, tuberculosis, and pandemic influenza. i will tell you probably that

the global milk initiatives and programs i was proud to have an aunt in helping to create like pixar, we have saved the lives of 5 million people in africa through the efforts of americans. -- like pepfar. [applause] today, astonishingly, we are standing on the edge of the potential of an aids-free generation, because we know these diseases don't discriminate by nationality. and we believe that relieving preventable suffering does not need justification. i think that part of our values. we valued gender equality. knowing that countries are more peaceful and prosperous when

women and girls are afforded full rights and equal opportunity. [applause] in the last decade, the proportion of african women enrolled in higher education went from nearly zero to 20%. in 2002, there were fewer than 1 million boys in afghan schools and barely any girls. now with america's health, more than one-third of the almost 8 million students going to school in afghanistan are girls. and more than one-quarter of their representatives in parliament are women. we should be proud backed. that helped make a difference. of we should be proud that and it makes a difference in the long haul.

the fulbright program enables talented citizens to share their devotion to diplomacy and to teach their belief that all the earth's sons and daughters are to have the opportunity to lift themselves up. today these exchanges bring hundreds of thousands of students to america from other countries and vice versa. in the last year alone, more than attend thousand citizens of foreign countries participated in the state department both academic youth professional and cultural exchange programs right here in virginia. virginians also studied abroad through state department programs. senator fulbright, i had to hear a privilege of testifying as a young veteran from vietnam. he knew the value of sharing our proudest values made a difference in the long run. he said having people understood your thoughts is much greater security than to have

been suffering. our assistance is not a giveaway. it is not charity. it is an investment in a strong america and in the free world. foreign assistance lips other people abandon reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common. when we help others crackdown on corruption, it makes easier for our own compliance against corruption and it makes it easier for our country's -- companies to do business. we build partnerships that mean we don't have to fight a nuclear battles along. it means working with our partners around the world and making sure iran never obtained a weapon that could endanger our allies or our interests. when we help others create the space they need to build stability in their own communities, we are helping brave people build a better more democratic future and making

sure that we don't pay more later in american blood and treasure. the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for our american values intersects powerfully to in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors. we as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren. and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorm, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. president obama is committed to moving forward on that stance:. so must you be ready to join us in that effort.

[applause] can we all say thank you and to our signers? [applause] so, think about all these things i've listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we're all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our plan at. -- planet. when we work with others to develop and deploy clean technologies that will power a new world -- six trillion dollar market waiting -- huge amount of jobs, when we do that, we know

we are helping create new markets and opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so that we can succeed in the next great revolution in our marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and to truly take on this challenge. if we don't rise to meet it, then rising temperatures and rising the levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. ask any insurance company in america. if we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for. we need to find the courage to lead a far -- leave a far different legacy. we cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet without also talked about the unprecedented changes in its population. another great opportunity at our fingertips.

in countries across north africa and the middle east, the majority of people are younger than a 30 years old. 60% under 30. a 50% under 21. 40% under 18. half of them under 20 total. they look for the same opportunities and the same things that you do -- opportunity. we have an interest in helping these young people, to develop the skills they need to defeat mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies, so they can start contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist caught or other kind of extremist activity. for the first time in human activity, young people around the world act as a global colewort, including many of the people in this room. we are more open-minded, more proficient with the technology that keep them connected as no

generation in history has ever been before. if we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable network in a positive way. some may say not now, not while. while we have our budget. believe me, my friends. these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it is more convenient. it is not easy. but responding is the american thing to do. i will tell you, it is worth it. these programs the vance peace and security around the world, which help -- advance peace and security around the world, which open markets to american

manufacturers, fostering stable societies to save lives by fighting disease and hunger, defended the universal rights of all people, advance freedom and dignity, bringing people together, nations together. addressing problems that transcend the separation of motions, giving hope to a new generation in an interactive world of citizens. in all those things it costs us as scientists mentioned about one penny of every dollar that we invest. america, you will not find a better deal anywhere. i am particularly aware that many ways theatest challenge to america's foreign policy hands of our

diplomats and policy makers in congress. it is often said we cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world. but in these days of the budget sequester, which everyone wants to avoid -- or most -- we cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america at last put its own fiscal house in order. that has to be now. [applause] think about it. it is hard to tell the leadership of other countries that they have to resolve their economic issues when we do not resolve our own. let's reach a responsible

agreement. let's not use this opportunity because of politics. as i have said many times before, america is not exceptional simply because we say we are. we are exceptional because we do exceptional things. both where there are problems as well as where there is promise. both where there is danger as well as red there is democracy. i am optimistic that we will continue to do these exceptional things. i know that is who we are and it is who we have always been. as we ask for our next steps in this path, we would do well to learn a lesson from our own history. in the aftermath of world war ii, america had a choice, just like we do today, to turn inward.

instead the secretary of state, george marshall, sought in both defeated and allied countries the threat of bankruptcy, homes and re -- homes and railways destroyed, economies decimated. he had the foresight to know that there could be no political stability, no peace without renewed economic strength. he knew that we had an obligation to partner with europe, help them rebuild, modernize, give the push that it needed to become the powerful and peaceful trading partner it is today. after the war, my friends, we did not spike the football, we created another level playing field. we are stronger for it today. when i was 12 years old i had the privilege of living in germany, where my father, an officer, was called to duty. one day i visited the eastern side of berlin.

the part that had not received any of the help from the united states and its courageous marshall plan. the difference was undeniable, even to my 12-year-old eyes. there were few people on the streets, a few smiles on the faces of those were there. i saw the difference between hope, the spare, freedom, and oppression. people who were given the chance to do something as opposed to the people who were not. as western europe regained its vibrant color, the place i visited was still in black and white. when i went back to west berlin, two things happened. first, i was summarily grounded for venturing without permission to the other side of the city. [laughter] second, i started to pay special attention to the plaques on the buildings that recommend -- that recognize the united states of america for lending a hand in

rebuilding. i was proud. the marshall plan, imf, and other organizations led by the united states are evidence of our ability to make the right decisions at the right time, taking risks today in the interest of tomorrow. we now face a similar crossroads. we can be complacent or competitive as markets bloom in every corner of the world. with or without us. we could be there to help plant the seeds or we can see the power to others. given the chance to lead a second great american century, we must not just look to the american landscape today. look at the days to come. we must marshal the courage that define the the marshall plan so that we might secure in the

future freedom. let's remember the principles of jefferson's time. looking to independence echoing in our time. interest istional in leading strongly and it still in doers in this world. let me leave you with a thought. when tragedy and terror visit our neighbors, whether by the hand of man or the hand of god, many nations give of themselves to help. only one is expected to. with the leadership of president obama i will work hard to secure for the congress the continuing of the lead of the separation. not because we view it as a

burden, but because we know it to be a privilege. that is what is special about the united states of america. that is what the special about being an american. that exceptional quality that we share is what i will take with me on my travels on your behalf. the responsibility cannot be reserved for responses to emergencies at home. it has to be exercised in the pursuit of exercising the disaster, of building markets. of standing up for our guidance. over the next four years i asked you to stand with our president and our country to continue to conduct ourselves with the understanding that what happens over there matters right here. and it matters that we get this right. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you so much, secretary carry. we are very privileged to have you here for your first major address as secretary of state. a great privilege for all of us. i would now like to ask that each of you remain in your seats

for about two minutes while we are able to escort the secretary safely from the building. thank you all for being here today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> john kerry leaves charlottesville and returns to washington at 4:00. he will leave on sunday for a 10

day trip, his first as secretary of state. this is his first major foreign policy address at the university of virginia. we are opening the phone lines and reading your twitter messages to find out what your foreign policy priorities are. for republicans, 202-585-3881. -- 3885. democrats, 202-55-386. make sure that you mute your television or radio. we welcome our radio listeners to call in. also, the twitter hastag to use is seckerry. here is a twitter message from the university of virginia. "foreign assistance is not a giveaway, it is an investment."

"countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women and girls are awarded equal ranks an opportunity." this is thomas, democratic line. cincinnati. caller: i thought it was a very compelling speech. it was very good in advancing the idea of the united states and the great speech town of what the presidency can do. >> charlottesville, michael, right there. university of virginia? go-ahead. >> the secretary mentioned a lot about human rights and the united states championing them around the world, but i feel he failed to mention the situation in china as one of the most pressing issues. they have resorted to drastic measures to make their voice

heard. >> what does that being left out say to you? caller: i think the secretary is taking a weak position towards the chinese government. he seems to not want to offend the chinese government, so he is turning a blind eye to the situation. >> of course, the ministration talking about potential action against china. news reports show that hacking in china has been traced back to a specific source. we may hear more from the administration on that this afternoon or tomorrow. new york is next. don, what are your foreign policy priorities based on what you heard? caller: first, i generally agree with a lot of what we heard. it is a small percentage of the total budget and our biggest financial challenge is basically the entitlements. i would just want to caution,

number one, i would be very careful about our government dictating our values, which are basically western and secular, in other countries that have very different cultures. we will look arrogant and like the proverbial of we american if we go too far. we must be careful about that. second, this is a good opportunity to unite with who should be our strongest ally, which is russia. >> the president heads to the white house this afternoon -- secretary kerry had so the white house this afternoon. he will be traveling to egypt, saudi arabia, the u.k., germany, france, italy kelli turkey, and the united arab emirates. caller: talking about congress and the sequester, that was a some symbols idea. obama wanted that idea to go

forward. and now he is trying to blame congress. congress did not come up with the sequestered. it was the obama plan from the beginning. of course now we see obama and the democrats talking about congress. it was a some symbols obama idea. >> it is a little off topic, i will let you go, but the sequester is set to happen next friday, march 1. the pentagon is addressing that next friday and there will be a news conference coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern to talk about pentagon plans on c-span 2 at 1:00. gail is on the democrat line. what did you think of the secretary's speech? >> i thought that his speech was excellent. i am really grateful for the

secretary and what he is doing. we live in an interdependent world and it is important that we give foreign policy rights. that also includes getting the budget right. that is the message around the world. if we want to be successful, we need to do this at home, we need to make sure that we are sending the message of who americans are out of the world. thank you so much, senator -- secretary carry, for what you're doing. >> john, independent line. >> i would like -- i like to the secretary's speech. it had ambition and scope. i wish him great success in the job. i do feel that he has to overcome a legacy of failure from hillary clinton in her years as secretary of state. >> what is the specific failure he has to overcome? caller: she tried a russian

reset, which i do not think worked. they are now talking about pivoting into the south china sea and sticking a finger in the chest of the chinese. they had an open chest and then an open hand to iran, which was not successful. north korea continues to experiment with nuclear bombs, saying that it is specifically to the united states. pakistan has become a recipient of a great amount of aid that they had no incentive to end the war in afghanistan, because they received this aid and worked against many of our interests in that part of the world. >> we appreciate your calls. let's check on some more tweets. this one is from jeremy, talking about africa. "of the 10 fastest-growing

countries in africa, five are the second-largest, with oil gas discoveries in mozambique." "i would like to see a breakdown of the secretary's speech about jobs versus foreign policy. we talk a lot about trade and foreign aid and global demographics. doug, illinois, republican line. hello. caller: thank you very much for c-span's impressive speech. the three areas i would like to see the secretary emphasize, the first would be the economy. we had such an opportunity in agriculture and green engineering for more and more. secondly, i would like to see more in each of. he has a real good opportunity

there. third, i would like to congratulate him to turn the government to develop vaccines for military research projects. it is peaceful to develop vaccines. i would urge the secretary to emphasize those areas. >> we will take your calls for another few minutes here. in afghanistan the undersecretary of state will be speaking at the council of foreign relations and about 12:30 eastern. we will take a couple more minutes of your calls here and get to up to 12:30 before you know it. hardwick, massachusets is on the line.

james? caller: i was sad to lose him as a senator, but happy to see him in the role of secretary of state. i believe that many people looking to see how the secretary and the president rule on the keystone pipeline. he has talked a lot about leading as a world leader, but i am also very interested in having to hear what he has to say when it comes to the decision of the pipeline. many of us will be watching on the pipeline. >> this twitter message agrees -- "think, if you approve the

pipeline, the u.s. will have energy security." atlanta, john, hello. caller: i was impressed with the enthusiasm and vigor coming out of john kerry. the one problem is that we of chuck kaye goal, -- hegel, who has no enthusiasm. i wish we could have gone someone with more of what we just saw, like secretary carry. >> how do you compare john kerry to hillary clinton? caller: he has a much greater vision. i think he really has a vision going here that is, hopefully we can get more out of, a more unified action. other parts of the world, with

poverty and conflict, it is a big plus over hillary. caller: i differ with john kerry on two big points. number one, it seems to me that the corporations have taken over the american government. he seems to be a pawn for american corporations about establishing markets around the world. i think that the average person in america has very little input into what our government does on that basis and i do not think we should be sending money overseas. we should be using it to help disaster victims and helping the poor and the people that cannot make it. we have so many bills at home that need to be paid. these countries need to get

along financially as a first point. the second point is that i totally support a free and to size -- free enterprise system, but you cannot force that down the throats of countries overseas that have different religious basis. they are not christian, for one thing. they do not believe in liberty for every man. you would have to change your entire cultural history and entire religious background to introduce the free enterprise system and it is not going to work. we are sacrificing the lives of men and women in america for no reason. >> let's check on a couple of these final tweets. "jefferson understood that we could be -- we could not be a strong country without investing in our education." of course, the secretary spoke

at thomas jefferson's university, the university of virginia. "95% of the world's customers live outside our country." "i feel so old, first years were only in second grade on september 11, 2001." francis, democratic line. caller: john kerry is just a political illuminatus appointment. he has a satanic global agenda that is happening. >> did you say a satanic agenda? caller: yes. >> all right, we will let you go. on twitter, seckerry is the hashtag you can use. coming up in a few moments, we

will hear from the assistant secretary of state, rick martin. and address of the sequestration cuts, we are expecting. "we will be doing anything possible to limit the worst effects, but i regret that our ability within the law is limited shot -- limited, should sequestration occur." there will be a news briefing on the pentagon plans coming up in about 35 minutes at 1:00 p.m. eastern. next up on c-span, while we wait for the event on the council to start we will bring you to a conversation from this morning's

"washington journal" focusing on policy issues when congress returns next week. host: megan hughes works for bloomberg news. we are talking about the sequester. you can see this highlighted -- nine days until the automatic spending cuts go into affect. megan hughes, is the debate how to stop the sequester, or who is at fault? guest: the debate is about how to stop the sequester, but we hear a constant blame game. nobody wants the sequester to happen. my e-mail inbox is flooded with laundry list of what is going to be cut. at the white house 70,000 children would lose headstart, there would be fewer food

inspectors, the president appeared with first responders yesterday, really trying to highlight and hit home this week. i get those e-mails from republicans as well. neither side wants to see this happen, the revenue continues to be the big sticking point had -- sticking point. host: john boehner in an op-ed today says "obama invented the sequester in the summer of 2011 to avoid facing up to america spending problem." how has the finger-pointing been going? guest: the white house response to republicans saying this came from the white house is congress signed off on this, both parties signed off on this, and polls have shown that republicans might take some of

the blame when you are talking about this balanced approach that the president keeps talking about. host: let's listen to president obama speaking yesterday in front of first responders and he got into the origins of the sequester. [video clip] >> congress passed a law saying that if parties could not agree on the $4 trillion goal, arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year, and the design was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that democrats and republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of good, sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth.

so, this was all designed to say we cannot do these bad cuts, let's do something smarter. that was the whole point of this so-called sequestration. host: president obama speaking yesterday. bloomberg government has a sequestration powerbroker monitor. what have you learned from this? guest: they have been tracking what brokers say, whether they sound optimistic or pessimistic about a deal. they look at the administration, congressional democrats and republicans and the business community, and you will see that the business -- the administration has sounded the most optimistic, like a

deal could happen. then you look at the business community. they would be next in line at this point. what is really interesting about this is it comes on the eve of congressional democrats actually having a vote. democrats have a proposal they will vote on next week that would replace the sequester. clearly, it is evidence that they do not think the deal they have come up with will not go through. it is a 110 billion dollar plan, and the sticking point is 50% of that is cut, and the other 50% would be tax increases. host: charles, on our democrat line. caller: i have a comment. i do not think this thing is going to happen. i think it is the republicans trying to get what they want, but the democrats will stand strong.

they will get down to the last couple of days, and they will come up with something maybe just to kick it down the road just to get past march 1. the balanced approach will be to have limited cuts in the same amount of revenue, and republicans do not want to agree on that. this is all to go against the president. >> we take you live to the council on foreign relations. the assistant secretary of state rick martin will be talking about u.s. civilian operations in iraq and afghanistan. -- assistant secretary of state rick barton will be talking about u.s. civilian operations. >> welcome to a discussion with rick barton. today's meeting is on the record. ambassador barton will make a few remarks and then i will chat

with him for a bit. the second half of the meeting will be open to questions. ambassador barton is from maine. the lost his accent as a child of a diplomat growing up overseas. he was the deputy high commissioner of the u.n. agency. he has taught at the woodrow wilson school. he has done a whole variety of other things including involvement in more than 30 conflict-ridden situations. last year, he was confirmed as the head of the new state department bureau for conflict and stabilization. this is an extremely new initiative.

he has one of the most challenging job descriptions i have seen in a while, to improve u.s. government effectiveness in preventing conflicts and addressing crises. ambassador. >> thank you very much. thank you for the good introductions and also for all of the friends that have come here today. there are so many that i have had a chance to work with or work for. oti, aid. i know that i have to be brief because there are a lot of people out here that no more than i do. i am looking forward to the conversation and the questions that all of you offered. as she mentioned, we were created about a year ago. this new bureau was part of the process which secretary clinton

initiated. this is one of the most direct outgrowths. there was a feeling that the u.s. needed to be more effective, needs to be a more coherent. that is how it remains. what i thought i would do in the 10 minutes or so that i was invited to set the table is to describe some of the internal challenges that are at the top of my mind for this first year. to give you a quick taste of that, not dwell on the changes we have made inside of the bureau because really is not just the start up, there is a merger as well in the existing office. it was a complicated transaction that we got this year. i am happy to come back to it.

i am not going to give you examples. we will talk about the country cases. i am sure that some of you will come back with some of those as the session goes on. in terms of the internal needs, obviously there is a very big map of opportunity that is out there. just yesterday at the senior staff meeting, because of the holiday it was yesterday, secretary carried finish to the meeting by saying that there are still more failed states, not fewer. -- secretary kerry finished the meeting by saying that there are still more failed states, not fewer. this is a job that is fraught

with opportunities. the way we are trying to get it out, to give you quickly what i see as the internal needs and i think these will ring true to many of you. more focus is required. the u.s. is not going to be able to do everything everywhere but even when we have gone in and spent $3 million in a place, we have found that we were lacking focus. focus is the first that we have started. there are four countries that are regionally disbursed where we found ambassadors, indices that are eager to take on these challenges and where we thought we could make a difference. there are a lot of internal and external calculations. 80% of our effort has been on syria, burma, central

america, with particular, honduras. that does not mean we have neglected the world but that is where our effort has been. we still need a center of gravity. it is still hard to find out who is driving the policy in many cases, who is is in charge, who was saddling bureaucratic differences. who is not only convening meetings but who is resolving the direction for the u.s. government? we have made a constructive contribution, particularly the early stages of the process where the analysis sort of brings a dispassionate perspective and some other elements are mostly in play. the third point that we need improvement on is that in this immediate time, the zero-365 period, there is a need for the

government to be more agile. it happens to be a time that if you take the right step in the right direction, you are probably going to have a greater influence. the u.s. can still have an exceptionally bureaucratic process for how we deal with these. i have had a fellow assistant secretary say that and our best day we will be there in a year. the normalization process can undermine that as well. the fourth point on the internal needs which is the reform we are looking towards is that we have to have greater conflict experts. there is a natural tendency for people who know a place to think that they should dominate the policy discussion. that is only one perspective. one of our most prominent ambassadors who has worked for the police said, i have worked in this bureau for 25 years and

never had a single change in government. now, i having to deal with radical change and i actually need your help. i would welcome somebody who has really worked outside of the issue. that is something that has to continue to be built upon. the unpredictability, the speed with which things happen is clearly still a challenge for our existing models. i would like to spend the last part of this on the in country places where we still need to make changes. the first is that we have to understand the context and the case much better. our analysis has to be much more objective. as we send out the refugee bureaus, the narcotics bureau, there is a very good likelihood that the response it will come

back with is that the happens to be a problem with refugees, with narcotics, or with terrorism. getting the broader context is where we have to start. if we look at many of the ways we have gotten stuck, we have really not had that agreement on what the case was. you have this u.s. government which reminds me of a concert parent looks great, you can play the whole keyboard, but at the end, you have not necessarily settled on what needs to be done. the u.s. cannot afford to be the van cliburn in these cases. we need to settle on some priorities after some analysis. in most of these places, there are two or three things you had better get right or you will not make much progress. if we try to come in and do 25

things, it is unlikely that we will be as focused as we could be. the second thing i would like to suggest is that i think we need to look much more aggressively for what we are calling the silence majorities. these are the people, the vast majority that wants change. they don't like the existing regime and they don't like the predictable opposition. they are nervous about raising their voices and get involved in the political process. in many cases, they are a political. generally, you can find large examples of them in women and youth and other populations that are underserved and are eager to have a greater influence. the business community falls in that as well. for the third point is that we need to go local at the very front end. it is clearly -- in every

country we are working on, we find local initiatives that are likely not to succeed. doesn't it make more sense to invest in that than to bring in the whole infrastructure? this will take us months to understand what is going on. this increases our influence. it forces us to be catalytic, it captures local talent, it makes us much more sustainable. we have all talked about it for years and we still do not produce. the first response is 70, 10, 15 internationals. it usually takes months to figure out what you are doing. it should probably be more complicated and a new country, a new job. the final point i would raise, every one of these cases, help

is needed. in almost every case, they don't want us to take over. so, overt assistance and the kind that we are operating fits with what these places need and want. we should be much more respectful of the fact that it is not ours to own, we also do not want to own 8. -- to own it. these other rules that we are refining as we are going through this first year. i am more than happy to talk about the ways that we are working in each case. since many of you are practitioners, some of these points might fit with some of your own. people are having fun. this is an unbelievable privilege.

it has started to be fun. forward to the conversation. >> thank you very much, ambassador. i will not ask you if you're having fun but i wanted to start with a general question. in selecting these four cases where you are focusing your energy, is this a science or an art that you are trying to cultivate? is this a systemic approach you are trying to develop >> are yor are you trying to see what you can do in each case? >> it is the result of a process of considerable kind of consultation with people and the white house, with the assistant secretary of the regional bureaus. making sure that there is an ambassador there who really feels they need help. so, there is an internal game. we sort of follow.

on the other hand, we want to be places that really matter. they matter to the u.s. that the moment is the right moment to actually do something that will take hold. there is something that we could do as well. that is really the criteria. how do we end up in syria rather than egypt, yemen that were on the table? yemen was the easiest. we probably would have been killed if we went in there to work. it did not seem as though it was quiet as dynamic and opportunity. egypt was a huge ongoing operation. we thought it would be hard to figure out that unless the ambassador said, look, i want to take a review of the portfolio, it would be hard to figure out

how we could influence the case. libya seems to have an international flavor. syria also had a positive argument because of its location between turkey and israel. we also multiple strategic attractions. there was the unpredictability of the conflict, how long would it go? as it turns out, in a place like syria, the u.s. government costs rolodex, it was not very great. we didn't really -- the embassy in damascus had not had a chance to get to know the opposition and where the energy was in this whole revolutionary process. so, the training and equipping that we did to the non-violent opposition has allowed us to

really broaden the u.s. knowledge of what is going on in syria, who the key players are. you are getting closer to a circumstance where there might be either a fractionalized or a highly decentralized results of the conflict, then you really do want to know 100 people and aleppo. this is the kind of foundation- building that you have to undertake. >> could you tell us something more specific about how you are doing that? do you know 100 people and aleppo? you have a team of 200. are you able to get people in on the ground? >> syria is a really good challenge because you have

worked out of a third country which has its only very distinct feelings about what is going on inside of syria. we have worked exclusively in turkey and we started to work in jordan as well. not that the internal bureaucratic are important but that is two geographic bureaus. also different sets of ambassadors. again, i don't want to overstate the sensitivity of that but that is what we have to do. what we have done -- the answer is yes. we do know people in a lot. but what concerns me, all of them have had to come across the border and we have helped to provide equipment for them and also training sessions and how to use the equipment safety.

we have a lot more to do in terms of getting to know more syrians for example, if you do a is setting exercise where you want to make sure they are not terrorists at the same time, this is another part of our process. that is not tell you about how capable they are. >> i believe you're going to burma. what are you hoping to get down there? >> the u.s. policy in burma, we try to anchor ourselves to u.s. policy. that seems to be a good place to start. we think that the u.s. policy is pretty clear. we want to open the place up, we want to deal with the longstanding ethnic disputes and we want to do business. the second is probably the most delicate. >> typically, how you approach

that? >> it has been very delicate and very sensitive because the burmese seem to be moving quite nicely on the road towards the first and third targets. -- seem to be moving quite nicely on their own in towards a first and third targets. we try to find a subject matter that might bleed a dialogue between the parties. what we settled on has been land mines because it turns out that neither side really likes land mines. two of the most conflicted areas, we are working with both parties to hopefully bring them together around the subject of land mines. if there is progress on that, then it a richer discussion will follow. that is the way we are going at it. >> can you give us some thoughts on afghanistan,

where the problems from corruption to the violence, are you involved? >> we do have the largest operation in afghanistan. over the course of the last year, we have reduced dramatically apparent we had 30 people, now we are down to four. until we felt that the transition was the largest issue and we should probably do our part to get out as well as we could. all of our people that are working on the transition plan. they are doing planning for the embassy and military on the next steps. that is all we have left in the country right now. i had a conversation for someone who says, maybe you'd think about doing these in afghanistan. >> what are you doing in the elections? >> well, as all of you know,

four years ago, kenya lit up as a result of the political leadership essentially stoking the public and a lot of youth to the point where several hundred thousand people died. it really got out of control. that is the focus of what we are doing. the embassy wanted to help us drive our energy towards election-related violence. we felt that we are on the right issue. what could you possibly do? we felt there would be a great deal of attention provided by the u.s. and other international partners to the election and logistics of the election. in a way, it is flattering and it is a bit of an industry.

there are a lot of people that know how to do elections. almost every has about the problems and delays. we felt that the greater problem was that if there was violence, who would check it? 10 years ago, we went through a time of amazing reform. they have a new constitution, they have commissions for everything under the sun. it is almost unreformed in the fact that it has too much in the body politic. we have to make an assumption that the police would probably not be in shape to do what we would hope they would do. we did not think it was smart. what we want to do is to find ways with this amazing network

that the state department has gone under way for fighting aids, for fighting horticulture programs, for a series of initiatives. how do you do this? we had a conversation, there was 14 people there. we had a conversation that got to the question. what worries you most about your country this year? are you doing as much as you would like to be doing to combat that? no. you like to be more engaged? yes. is there anything you could bring in terms of an early warning system, making the police marketable, checking out

the election is going? the first person to speak with a man running a horticultural program. i have only got 4000 kenyans in this area who are part of my program. you could get elected governor of any state but texas with 4000 people as your base. we have several hundred thousand households that we visit in this region every week. we said, what would it take for you to bring your assets to this charge? aid already had an initiative which had tens of thousands of youth gauged in the process. -- engage d in the process.

how do you bring these people to the next level of capacity? they said, we need to come together right away. secondly, if you help us get some local staff and you can take our assets, we will continue doing our day jobs. the whole peace initiative was started in the valley. something like it in the coast. we are very worried about places like the slums in nairobi which are tougher. i think you did make a difference. at the very least, there will be thousands of people that are more involved in the political process than they would have been. they would have been spectators but now they are participants. >> thank you. >> i will open up the floor to questions. please state your name and affiliation. please keep your questions brief.

please keep your questions friendly. >> i am impressed, it does not happen often. you have to focus, you have to jump in with both feet. you have to let the locals do it. >> we are trying to. what is your and state if it is not to make them into switzerland? -- what is your end state. what is the outcome? romania, lebanon? >> thank you. thank you for your compliment. i hope there was no sarcasm.

in a case like kenya, we are probably done after a the second run. believe in every case is that clean and simple. we will likely be involved in syria for maybe six months after the change in regime. we believe that we will help to get things started and really create the opportunity. it should fit in to other opportunities that the u.s. government and the international community's see in this place. in a place like honduras, there are certain elements of the work we have done that are already finished. they are looking for kind of emergency help with prosecutions and the issue there was the explosive homicide rate

and the loss of government control, the total loss of public confidence. they are tied to the highest homicide rate in a non conflict zone. we did give them some initial emergency help to bring some prosecutors and some homicide investigators because they did not have enough of those in place. that part of the program has already ended. the local initiatives we believe are quite promising including a national tax on the business community to make the country safer. took considerable legislative action. the likelihood that it will be implemented well is not that great. how do you try to build success out of a nice idea that might or might not work? we say zero to